The search for the real story
There is a need to balance civil rights with national interests, says the Home Minister.
IT’S been three weeks since the Bersih 3.0 protest on April 28. Depending on who you speak to, you will get different interpretations of how the protest evolved.
The authorities say the protest went out of control after demonstrators breached the barriers at Dataran Merdeka. The protesters, on the other hand, claim that the police were high-handed and had overreacted.
Now that the temperature has lowered, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein shares his thoughts on the Bersih 3.0 incident and pledges to act against the wrongdoers, irrespective of who they are.
> Whatever the estimated number, the fact is that the Bersih 3.0 protest was huge. Surely the Government must take this massive number seriously?
Now that the temperature has lowered and emotions have subsided, we should look at the incident in a more rational manner.
Two groups went out on April 28. There was the Bersih 3.0 proper whose participants wanted to take part in a peaceful assembly as permitted by the law. The other group, on the other hand, wanted to occupy Dataran Merdeka.
Bersih 1.0 and Bersih 2.0 were about electoral reforms but Bersih 3.0 had other issues – PTPTN, LGBT and Lynas. Add them all together, the numbers were larger than before.
Having said that, we will want to know what the actual figure is. From the aerial views, we will work on determining the numbers. There is now technology which can do this. We don’t just want perception (that the crowd was big). We want to know the truth. But whatever the number, whether it was 100,000 or 500,000, they don’t represent the 27 million Malaysians.
> Some who went for the Bersih 3.0 rally genuinely wanted electoral reforms. What about them?
If that’s the case, then why not take up the offer to hold the rally at stadiums?
One must look at the events building up to Bersih 3.0. It started from April 14 when students wanted to occupy Dataran Merdeka and Opposition politicians supported them.
Police acted with restraint and Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) officers did a remarkable job in handling the situation. On the day of Bersih 3.0, participants had gathered at 14 points before making their way to the square. In the early morning of April 28, some 3,000 of them were already at Dataran Merdeka. The police did not engage with the crowd, even when the number got bigger and some began to provoke the police.
What is important now is this – the rule of law must be upheld, truth must prevail and the interest of the people must be protected. This we will do without fear or favour.
Police investigations have been divided into three categories – the demonstrators; organisers and instigators; and police personnel who were on duty. We won’t be biased. Anyone who broke the law will have to answer. No one will be spared. We will not tolerate anyone who breaks the law and causes chaos.
> What caused the police to
A lot of people wanted the rally to be peaceful. But they have to learn from what happened that things can go wrong. — DATUK SERI HISHAMMUDDIN HUSSEIN
turn against the demonstrators?
The police had been standing there for hours, almost a day in fact, but nothing happened. Until someone (Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and PKR deputy president Azmin Ali) gave a signal for the crowd to breach the barriers and that’s what the demonstrators did. This happened despite someone else (Bersih 3.0 co-organiser Datuk S. Ambiga) telling the crowd to disperse, and she later admitted that she could not control the crowd.
The demonstrators went through the barbed wires, the plastic and metal barriers and the police – that’s four different barriers, mind you.
Police reacted only after the four barriers were breached and only when the situation looked like an order made under Section 98 (of the Criminal Procedure Code) would be violated. The court had declared Dataran Merdeka out of bounds and everyone knew they had to comply with that.
So when the situation looked as if Section 98 would be breached – and after the demonstrators rammed through four different barriers – the FRU (Federal Reserve Unit) had to act. All the information is available to us. Now, through the channels that exist, be it the independent panel or Suhakam, the stories can come out. > Did the police act on order? Let me reiterate that the police aacted only when the barriers were breached. On what happened after (barriers were breached), let the independent panel and others look into the matter. There are visuals of alleged police brutality posted on the Internet. We will use that to investigate. We also have visuals of demonstrators and what they did. Let me assure you that no one will be spared.
But of the 14,000 police personnel deployed on April 28, only a handful were directly involved with the crowd. So it is not right to use the same brush to have a negative perception painted of the police.
While there were allegations of police being high-handed with the media, the most serious injuries were suffered by Al-hijrah journalist (Mohamad Azri Salleh), who was set upon by protesters while trying to save a policeman.
The silent majority should give us a chance to find out the truth and bring those who broke the law to justice.
Thankfully, there were no serious injuries. Apart from having to clean up the city, at least Kuala Lumpur wasn’t on fire. But we might not be so lucky next time if we don’t learn from what happened. It was a sad thing that democracy was hijacked that day.
> What do you think of the criticisms on the appointment of Tun Hanif Omar as chairman of the independent panel to probe Bersih 3.0?
They are attacking Hanif because he is the former Inspector-general of Police.
But Hanif is not the only person on the panel. There are five others and when they take up this task, I’m sure they would want to carry out their responsibility and get to the bottom of things.
There are people out there hellbent on demonising the panel and are doing so by attacking one person (Hanif).
> Certain quarters have questioned why the Government has not set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry or, at the very least, get Suhakam to probe the incident.
Suhakam is free to investigate the April 28 incident even if there is an independent panel. The panel is an alternative avenue for people to forward their grouses and convey whatever happened to them during Bersih 3.0.
If they feel the police are prejudiced or the Home Ministry is biased, they can say this to the panel. What is important is whether it is Suhakam, RCI or the independent panel looking into the case, we all want to know the truth.
> What if there is a Bersih 4.0 being planned?
Some Bersih 2.0 participants thought it was unreasonable for Bersih 3.0 organisers to refuse the stadium offer and decided not to get involved. Innocent people who went out on April 28, thinking everything would be all right (that day), would also think twice about participating in Bersih 4.0.
It has been proven that the Bersih 3.0 organisers could not control the crowd, contrary to Ambiga’s promise. She promised they would go and sit down at Dataran Merdeka and disperse two hours later. Postrally, she admitted she could not control the crowd. That was irresponsible.
Bersih 3.0 was not a security threat but there were those who broke the law. They came with a different agenda and hijacked the event. If Bersih 4.0 is to be held, the organisers will have to think very carefully about what their true intentions are.
A lot of people wanted the rally to be peaceful. But they have to learn from what happened that things can go wrong. As far as the Government is concerned, while we want to give people their rights, there is the security aspect that we need to look into.
> DBKL plans to train its personnel to prepare them for possible demonstrations or illegal rallies in the future. Is that necessary?
Why not? The reason why rallies are done in big cities, such as Occupy Wall Street in New York, is because the demonstrators want attention. If you want traction, you go to capital cities like KL. DBKL is facing a new landscape. It will be good for their officers to be well trained on how to handle such situations without affecting public order, national safety and security.
> What are the lessons learnt from Bersih 3.0?
The public can see our concern. That is why the Peaceful Assembly Act does not allow for street demonstrations because when you have that, anything could go wrong.
I appeal to the Malaysian public to please think rationally. What happened during Bersih 3.0 proves that things can go wrong. Right-thinking individuals like (former DAP vice-chairman) Tunku Abdul Aziz (Tunku Ibrahim) and (PAS former deputy president) Nasharudin (Mat Isa) share our concern. We may differ in our political views but we should be on the same page when it comes to the people’s safety and national security.
Peaceful assemblies are possible. Umno held a mass gathering to celebrate its 66th anniversary at the National Stadium. For the 100,000strong crowd, only 600 police personnel were on duty, compared with the 14,000 men deployed for Bersih 3.0.
The Government has also proven its commitment to bring about political transformation. The three Emergency Ordinances were lifted, Restricted Residence and Banishment Acts were repealed and the Peaceful Assembly Act and Security Offences (Special Measures) Act are now in place.
Barisan Nasional is a responsible government; we want to balance civil rights with national interest.
Let us “complete” these laws with experiences so that we will be able to balance rights and freedom with bigger (public) interest.
It (political transformation) is like a “work in progress” but if people are emotional, prejudiced and are looking for individuals to demonise, we will not be able to move forward.
The incidents during Bersih 3.0 and the changes made to the laws are experiences that we can use to chart the course for the nation’s future.